Retrieve Tom's Hardware article content from a canonical article URL, returning public metadata and body paragraphs for reading or analysis.
Get Tom's Hardware article content. Returns public Tom's Hardware article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Tom's Hardware article URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context by noting that only public articles are returned and that the output consists of metadata plus body paragraphs. It does not mention failure modes, URL validation behavior, or additional return details, but for a simple read-only article fetcher this level of transparency is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two crisp sentences with no wasted words. The action verb is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently adds the return type and URL requirement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential inputs and gives a high-level view of the return payload. It could be more explicit about what 'metadata' includes, but nothing an agent needs to make a correct call is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% — the sole parameter 'url' is already documented as 'Canonical Tom's Hardware article URL'. The description's mention of 'canonical article URL' largely restates the schema and adds no new format, normalization, or example details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies a clear verb ('Get'), a concrete resource ('Tom's Hardware article content'), and the precise output ('metadata and body paragraphs'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like tomshardware_headlines, tomshardware_news, and tomshardware_author by virtue of the resource and return type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'from a canonical article URL' implies the main trigger: the agent already has or can obtain a Tom's Hardware article URL, usually from a headlines/news/search tool. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the routing largely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.